1.CBS Showcases Diversity & Strength of "Peace" Marchers
Add CBS to the list of networks whitewashing Saturday's "peace" marches by ignoring the far-left agenda of those behind the protests and focusing on how marchers represented a cross-section of America. "Young, old, veterans and veteran activists united in the effort to stop the war before it starts," trumpeted CBS's Joie Chen. From San Francisco, John Blackstone highlighted a young boy who came with his father as Blackstone admired how "the crowd seemed to span the generations, a multitude that reminded" one protester "of the anti-war movement's glory days." Blackstone, however, did allow one woman to blast the "naiveté" of protesters.

3.Malpractice Victim Uses Morning Shows to Blast Bush
Linda McDougal, the Minnesota woman who had a double mastectomy after her biopsy was mistakenly confused with another woman's, used appearances on all three broadcast network morning shows on Monday to denounce President Bush's proposal to impose a $250,000 cap on pain and suffering awards. No morning show hosts challenged her. On CBS's The Early Show she claimed that Bush wishes to "harm" her as she falsely stated that the Bush plan would "impose a $250,000 cap on medical malpractice." On NBC's Today she charged that "Bush intends to harm me more."

4.CBS Uses Victim's Emotional Tale to Counter Bush
Last Thursday the CBS Evening News found a victim of medical malpractice to denounce President Bush's proposal to set a $250,000 pain and suffering limit in malpractice cases. Though Elizabeth Kaledin allowed an advocate of Bush's position to make dry arguments, she offered a more powerful case for opponents by calling up emotion as she focused on a victim in a wheelchair and the views of "consumer groups." She didn't mention how liberal Democrats are compromised on the issue because of their dependence on trial lawyer money.

5. Cal Thomas Stumps Stahl Who Can't Name a Conservative at CBS
Liberal Media Bias Denial, example one: Stahl stumped. On FNC's After Hours with Cal Thomas, CBS News veteran Lesley Stahl denied the very concept of any liberal bias and claimed that "today you have broadcast journalists who are avowedly conservative" and that the voices being heard on the networks "are far more likely to be on the right." Thomas wondered if she could "name a conservative journalist at CBS News?" Stahl could not and insisted that CBS reporters steadfastly "cleanse our stories" of any opinion.

6.
Liberal Bias Not a Concern to New CNN Chief
Liberal Media Bias Denial, example two. CNN's new chief, Jim Walton, isn't concerned about liberal media bias at his network. The Boston Globe's Mark Jurkowitz revealed last week that of the sentiment that "CNN was a bastion of liberal media tilt," Walton "said flatly that the bias charge was not an issue with him."

7.
LA Times Reporter Admits Every Media Bias But a Liberal One
Liberal Media Bias Denial, example three. Los Angeles Times media reporter David Shaw argued the media are biased in many ways, but just not in a liberal way. Shaw could see bias in favor of "change," "bad news," "conflict rather than harmony" and "sensationalism, scandal, celebrities and violence," But, he insisted, "we don't, consciously or subconsciously, slant our stories to fit our ideology." He argued that his list of biases are "far more damaging than any kind of intermittent, inadvertent ideological bias."

Add CBS News to the list of networks whitewashing Saturday's anti-war "peace" marches by ignoring the far-left anti-American agenda of those behind the protests and focusing on
how marchers represented a cross-section of America. "Young, old, veterans and veteran activists united in the effort to stop the war before it starts," trumpeted CBS's Joie Chen in story run on both Saturday's CBS Evening News and Sunday Morning.

From San Francisco, John Blackstone highlighted a young boy who came with his father as Blackstone admired how "the crowd seemed to span the generations, a multitude that reminded" one protester "of the anti-war movement's glory days." Blackstone, however, unlike the other networks, did allow one woman caught up in the crowd to deliver a blast at the "naivete" of the protesters.

More on CBS below, but first a reminder of what was reported in the January 20
CyberAlert:

-- "Peace march" whitewash. Ignoring the radical agenda of organizers, the networks painted attendees as sympathetically as possible, stressing how they were made up of "grandparents," "honor students," "soccer moms" and "Republicans." CNN highlighted an elderly Nazi survivor who wants to "stop more suffering." ABC's description: "Black and white, Democrat and Republican, young and old." MSNBC: "A growing number of people are speaking out against a war with Iraq: Students, grandparents, businessmen..." See:http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030120.asp#1

-- What the media whitewashed. The Web site for the rally organizer, ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) clearly proclaimed the group's very radical agenda. It railed against "Bush's criminal war" for "oil," denounced "the nuclear threat posed by the United States" and demanded "the immediate elimination of U.S. weapons of mass destruction" as "a people's inspection team will call for unfettered access and a full declaration of U.S. non-conventional weapons systems" since the "trigger-happy George W. Bush," not Hussein, is the real threat.http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030120.asp#2

-- Too embarrassed to report what was said from the stage? A 1,500-word article in Sunday's Washington Post contained a single nine word quote from an official speaker while a 1,000-word New York Times article failed quote a syllable from the DC stage. A Post reporter admired how the marchers "represented a cross- section of the nation, from World War II to Gulf War veterans... The Green Party brought a contingent, as did the American Indian Movement." See:http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030120.asp#3

CBS was not included in the January 20 review of coverage because Washington, DC's CBS affiliate did not carry most of Saturday's CBS Evening News. But, MRC analyst Brian Boyd noticed, that Sunday Morning ran two stories on the marches -- stories which a Nexis check determined had run in nearly identical form
on Saturday's Evening News. The stories below are from Sunday Morning since we could check those against the videotape.

Sunday Morning anchor Charles Osgood set up the January 19 stories: "A Newsweek magazine poll shows most Americans are in no hurry for military action against Iraq. Sixty percent of those polled said they prefer the administration take its time to seek a peaceful solution."

Then, over a world map marking where protests took place, Osgood added: "Demonstrations against a possible American military action took place the world-over yesterday, along with two big protests in Washington and San Francisco."

Joie Chen began the first of two pieces: "Telluride, Colorado sent its peace offering: 1200 of the town's 2000 residents signed it."
Woman in the crowd in DC: "They want our message heard."
Chen: "Others came from Columbus, Mississippi."
Woman in DC crowd: "You know, I just don't think I could sacrifice my son for ideals."
Chen: "From Pittsburgh."
Man in DC crowd: "I don't want to be a citizen of the world's biggest imperialist state."
Chen: "From across the Potomac in Reston, Virginia."
Woman in crowd: "I did vote for Bush and if I could withdraw my vote, I would withdraw my vote."
Chen: "Even Hollywood stars, Tyne Daly flew in from LA."
Daly: "We are about to turn into the enemy in a way that traditionally we never have in this country, which is to start a war."
Chen celebrated: "Young, old, veterans and veteran activists united in the effort to stop the war before it starts. What may have kept the protest from growing larger, the weather. It was the capital's coldest morning of the year, still, organizers appear to have met their goal of turning out the largest anti-war demonstration in the nation. But, activists worry that many Americans still aren't focused enough, and that the march toward war is inevitable."

Next, John Blackstone began from the Left Coast: "In San Francisco, many treated the peace march as a family affair, six year old Malcolm Gurba (sp a guess) had both a sign and a point of view."
Young boy: "I'm here because I'm voted for peace not war."
Blackstone: "Mark Gurba saw it as a perfect father/son activity."
Father: "I think it's a good way to get him involved in being an American and speaking up for what your rights are, and to try to stop this war."
Blackstone: "The crowd seemed to span the generations, a multitude that reminded Tim Heirs (sp a guess) of the antiwar movement's glory days."
Heir: "In the old days we used to have thousands and thousands, this is the first time people have been moved to really do this again."
Blackstone: "One person didn't belong in this crowd, Julie Litsil (sp a guess).
Woman in crowd: "I'm fed up with this display of naiveté. I think if we give peace a chance for any more time, that we're going to see destruction in this country like we've never seen before."
But Blackstone concluded by countering: "Organizers though see the makings of a powerful, new peace movement."

Late last week CNBC anchor Brian Williams chafed at how the anti-war protesters "will feel the hot breath of the patriotism police."

Wrapping up The News with Brian Williams on Thursday night last week, MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth noticed that Williams raised the concern as he previewed next day newspaper headlines:
"And finally, Chicago Tribune, they're looking at this big anti-war protest plan for this weekend in Washington. Yes, they will feel the hot breath of the patriotism police, 'How dare you go against a U.S.-led war effort with men and women in uniform?' But they also -- the marchers do -- contain members from groups like the National Council on Churches and at least 60 families who lost loved ones on September 11th."

The National Council of Churches as proof of what exactly? They are about as far to the left as you can get without coming full circle.

Linda McDougal, the Minnesota woman who had a double mastectomy after her biopsy was mistakenly confused with another woman's, used appearances on all three broadcast network morning shows on Monday to denounce President Bush's proposal to impose a $250,000 cap on pain and suffering awards in malpractice cases.

On CBS's The Early Show, for instances, she claimed that Bush wishes to "harm" her as she falsely stated that the Bush plan would "impose a $250,000 cap on medical malpractice." In fact, victims could still get full restitution for economic losses. She used nearly identical language on NBC's Today as she charged that "Bush intends to harm me more" and her lawyer made the political point for her on ABC's Good Morning America.

On the January 20 Today, MRC analyst Geoffrey Dickens observed, Ann Curry wondered: "Why did you come forward?" McDougal replied: "I have a couple messages. First all, first of all I think it's very important for women to hear my story and to take control of their own medical care. If you're, if you're ever faced with a diagnosis such as cancer you have to-"
Curry: "Get a second opinion."
McDougal: "Get a second opinion and a third if that's what it takes to make you feel comfortable with the decision. Secondly in light of President Bush's introduction or, or his wanting to pass legislation, putting a cap on medical malpractice of $250,000. President Bush intends to harm me more."
Curry: "You're saying by limiting how much you can get if you were to sue. You haven't decided whether to sue but you're saying that you don't want a limit yet on the, how much you could get."
McDougal: "That, that's correct. It's not fair to me and other victims of malpractice. Rather they should be looking at the source of the malpractice. Stop the medical malpractice cases from happening. Let, let's make the doctors accountable."
Curry: "Well on that note we have to live it. Linda McDougal all the best to you and thank you for coming forward to share your story. We wish you every good thing in the world."

Stopping malpractice ahead of time sounds like a reasonable point, but claiming Bush would harm her more was not since any bill that would pass would not go back in time to re-write the lawsuit rules that now exist.

Over on CBS's The Early Show, MRC analyst Brian Boyd noticed, quad-host Harry Smith inquired: "Why do you want people to know your story?"
McDougal at first urged women to not trust their doctors and "take control of your own medical care." She continued: "But secondly, President Bush wants to impose a $250,000 cap on medical malpractice. His intent is to harm me and other victims of medical malpractice. The solution might be getting to the source and taking care of the mistakes so that they never happen."
That ended the segment as Smith said good-bye: "Thank you very much for telling your story here, I do appreciate it."

On ABC's Good Morning America McDougal's lawyer, Chris Messerley, made the point for her. Diane Sawyer asked: "What about this, Mr. Messerley? No previous errors by this doctor."
Messerley: "Well, apparently physicians aren't going to be held accountable unless they do this more than once, and what's more offensive to a mother, and a daughter, and a spouse, and a veteran of our country, Linda, is that the President wants to tell her, 'Your case is only worth $250,000 for what you're going to have to go through for the rest of your life.'"
Sawyer: "You're talking about putting caps on injuries in suits."
Messerley: "Absolutely."
Sawyer, MRC analyst Jessica Anderson noticed, moved on: "But I want to go back to this, Dr. Kraus, because Mr. Messerley just said does somebody have to commit an offense twice before they're disciplined?"

Last Thursday the CBS Evening News found a victim of medical malpractice to denounce President Bush's proposal to set a $250,000 pain and suffering limit in malpractice cases. Though Elizabeth Kaledin allowed an advocate of Bush's position to make dry arguments, she offered a more powerful case for opponents by calling up emotion as she focused on a victim in a wheelchair and the views of "consumer groups." She didn't mention how liberal Democrats are compromised on the issue because of their dependence on trial lawyer money.

NBC's David Gregory did raise the trial lawyer role, though as to how it benefits Bush. On the January 16 NBC Nightly News, he noted: "This issue has particular political appeal to Mr. Bush's conservative base, which is eager to confront trial lawyers, among the Democrats' biggest supporters."

Dan Rather introduced the tilted CBS Evening News story taken down by MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth: "President Bush returned today to a major issue on his domestic agenda. It's a proposal to cap medical malpractice awards. He says they are driving up health insurance costs and driving doctors out of business. Opponents say that's a mis-diagnosis of the problem. Medical correspondent Elizabeth Kaledin has our report."

Kaledin began: "President Bush made his speech in Pennsylvania, a state whose doctors threaten to go on strike this month in the face of soaring malpractice insurance costs."
George W. Bush: "We need reform."
Kaledin: "The proposal, a federal cap of $250,000 on the pain and suffering claims added to most malpractice lawsuits. Doctors say the suits are sending their insurance premiums through the roof, raising the cost of health care and putting them out of business."
Bush: "And a broken system like that, first and foremost, hurts the patients and the people of America."
Kaledin: "But some of the American people would disagree."
Mary Ann Isdale, Medical Malpractice Victim: "I think that President Bush should sit in my chair for a few days."
Kaledin: "Mary Ann Isdale, the mother of two young boys, was paralyzed as the result of a medical error four years ago. Because she lives in California -- a state already limiting malpractice awards, and the model for President Bush's plan -- she was compensated financially, but was only awarded $250,000 for pain and suffering."
Isdale: "$250,000 is not a lot of money these days, especially for me to have to sit in this chair for the rest of my life trying to raise my boys and trying to be a good wife to my husband."
Kaledin: "Consumer groups are also blasting the Bush plan, saying the insurance industry is to blame for raising premiums in the first place."
Jamie Court, Consumer Advocate: "You cannot fix an insurance premium problem by taking away rights of innocent victims of medical negligence."
Kaledin: "But Brian Klepper, who runs the Center for Practical Health Reform, thinks the President has no choice."
Brian Klepper, Center for Practical Health Reform: "On this issue, the President, I believe is correct."
Kaledin: "The health care system is hemorrhaging, Klepper says, but there has been a little less bloodshed in states like California where caps exist."
Klepper: "Medical malpractice premiums for physicians went up in California by about 167 percent. Everywhere else in the country, on average, it went up over 500 percent."
Kaledin concluded: "President Bush is asking Congress to act as quickly as possible on medical malpractice reform. With more doctors threatening to walk off the job next month, signs point to a system in need of emergency care."

Liberal Media Bias Denial, example one. Lesley Stahl stumped by Cal Thomas. On FNC's After Hours with Cal Thomas on Saturday night, CBS News veteran Lesley Stahl, now with 60 Minutes, claimed that "today you have broadcast journalists who are avowedly conservative" and that the voices being heard on the networks "are far more likely to be on the right and avowedly so." But when Thomas wondered if she could "name a conservative journalist at CBS News?", Stahl could not.

During the taped interview featured on the January 18 edition of Thomas's 11pm EST Saturday FNC show, Thomas tried to get beyond the argument over whether there is liberal bias and get Stahl to address why the networks don't accommodate the views of the many they dissuade from watching because they do see a bias. MRC analyst Patrick Gregory transcribed the exchange.

Thomas: "I want to ask you a question, and I don't want to debate the issue; I want to get to a central point here. Many conservatives and religious people in this country feel that much of the media, especially the broadcast media, is biased or at least insensitive to their points of view. Now whenever this issue comes up with a major subject of some kind, you see journalists appear and say 'What me biased? We're not biased.' But the point I want to make is that there is an economic issue here. If millions of people feel this way, and give their allegiance to certain networks and newspapers that at least respect their viewpoints, isn't it incumbent upon the broadcast journalists to at least take those concerns seriously and to address them in a way that will bring in a larger audience?"
Stahl: "Well, I'm going to do what a lot of people used to do to me on Face the Nation, that drove me nuts. [laughing] Drove me nuts."
Thomas: "You're going to answer another question I didn't ask."
Stahl reacted with the journalistic attitude Thomas had just caricatured: "I'm going to attack the premise of the question, because I think today you have broadcast journalists who are avowedly conservative, very much so on your own network here at Fox and many other places. And in fact I gave a talk the other night and was asked how come all the other broadcast [holds up fingers to mimic quote marks] 'media' are so 'right-wing?' And where are the left-wing voices, if you wanna talk about the media. So I'm going to attack your premise and say that I think the voices that are being heard in broadcast media today, are far more -- the ones who are being heard, are far more likely to be on the right and avowedly so, and therefore, more -- almost stridently so, than what you're talking about."
Thomas pounced: "Can you name a conservative journalist at CBS News?"
Stahl was flummoxed and denied that anyone at CBS is biased in any way: "Well I don't know of anybody's political bias at CBS News. I really think we try very hard to get any opinion that we have out of our stories. And most of our stories are balanced, and there are standards that say they need to be balanced. So if you have one side, you try to get the other side. And I'm not saying we don't have opinions, but I'm saying we try to cleanse our stories of them."

I think they need a new brand of soap.

And where is Stahl speaking that she's asked "how come all the other broadcast 'media' are so 'right-wing?'" The CBS News cafeteria? Then again, if the questioner referred to "all the other broadcast media," then even the questioner realized what Stahl is in denial about -- that CBS News is biased in a non-right wing direction.

In a January 16 story on the ascension of Walton to replace Walter Isaacson as Chairman of the CNN News Group division of AOL Time Warner, Jurkowitz related:
"One matter that seemed to concern Isaacson during his tenure was the perception in some quarters -- sentiments stoked by the Fox News Channel -- that CNN was a bastion of liberal media tilt. Walton said flatly that the bias charge was not an issue with him. 'What I would tell you is I will always push CNN to be accurate and balanced.'"

Liberal Media Bias Denial, example three. In a Sunday piece, Los Angeles Times media reporter David Shaw argued the media are biased in many ways, but just not in a liberal way.
Shaw could see bias "in favor of change," "in favor of bad news," "in favor of conflict rather than harmony" and "in favor of sensationalism, scandal, celebrities and violence, as opposed to serious, insightful coverage of the important issues of the day."

But, he insisted, "we don't, consciously or subconsciously, slant our stories to fit our ideology." If it occurs subconsciously how would they know? He argued that his list of biases are "far more damaging than any kind of intermittent, inadvertent ideological bias."

Though he maintained it has no impact on coverage, Shaw conceded that on "issue after issue -- race relations, gun control, the environment, government spending, gay rights, capital punishment -- I think most journalists are more liberal than are most other Americans."

....Yes, I've read and heard all the complaints about most journalists voting for Al Gore over George W. Bush -- and for Bill Clinton over Bob Dole and for every other Democrat over every other Republican dating back at least to John Kennedy over Richard Nixon. This pattern supposedly proves that all reporters are liberals and their coverage is slanted to the Left.

I've also read and heard all the complaints about most major news organizations being owned by Republicans -- and, more recently, about all the major radio talk shows, plus Fox TV News, being dominated by conservatives, thus proving that the media are, in fact, slanted to the Right.

Sure, most reporters, like most other sentient beings, do have an ideology of sorts -- that is, we have personal opinions, often strong and, in our case, generally liberal. Only the uninformed or the inert have no opinions, and on issue after issue -- race relations, gun control, the environment, government spending, gay rights, capital punishment -- I think most journalists are more liberal than are most other Americans.

Yes, the people who own the conglomerates that own the television networks and many other major news organizations tend, like most other big businessmen, to be Republicans, as do the most successful talk-show hosts. And if Fox News is "fair and balanced," as its slogan boasts, it's certainly not intentional.

But to suggest that all this means, ipso facto, the media are politically biased in their news coverage is syllogistic reasoning at its worst. Talk radio hosts don't pretend to be impartial journalists. Fox is but one of many news outlets. In my experience, neither the conservative media moguls nor the liberal reporters try to impose their views on news stories.

Equally important, I honestly believe that most good reporters are able to set aside their personal political views when they cover a story.

Nevertheless, judging from what I read in my e-mail and hear on talk radio -- and looking at the success of Bernard Goldberg's book "Bias," which spent seven weeks atop the New York Times bestseller list early last year -- it's clear that allegations of ideological bias ring true with many Americans.

After all, they reason, if you feel strongly about a particular cause or a particular candidate, why wouldn't you use your journalistic platform to advance that cause or candidate? More to the point, how could you avoid doing so, at least subconsciously, no matter how committed you are to being fair? Wouldn't your personal feelings seep into the decisions, large and small, that you make as a journalist -- what stories to do, whom to interview, whom to quote, whom not to quote, what facts to emphasize, what language to use?

Sometimes -- rarely -- that does happen....

But I think the very real biases mentioned earlier -- the individual and institutional preference for change, conflict, bad news and sensationalism -- are far more common, and far more damaging, than any kind of intermittent, inadvertent ideological bias....

The news media's knee-jerk adversarial position toward those in power -- and our sneering assumption that virtually every politician is a liar or a hypocrite, invariably acting out of self-interest and self-aggrandizement, rather than out of a commitment to the public good -- has contributed to steadily declining voter turnout, discouraged many good men and women from seeking office, and makes us seem like cynical, self-righteous scandal-mongers....

Worst of all, the growing sensationalism-cum-trivialization of the news embodied in the media's sequential obsessions with O.J., Princess Di, Monica Lewinsky, Gary Condit, Martha Stewart, Elian Gonzales, shark attacks, the Indiana mother caught on tape apparently beating her 4-year-old daughter, and the frantic search for allegedly missing children (at a time when FBI statistics show that the kidnapping of children has actually declined) leaves us little time or space to cover the truly important issues of the day....

"Celebrity profiles, lifestyle scenes, hard-luck tales, good-luck tales and other human-interest stories rose from 11% to more than 20% of news coverage from 1980 to 1999," according to a Shorenstein Center study quoted in Patterson's new book, "The Vanishing Voter." "Stories about dramatic incidents -- crimes and disasters -- also doubled during this period. The number of news stories that contained elements of sensationalism jumped by 75%."...

So the way I see it, the problem with the media's political coverage isn't bias. It's shrinkage. And superficiality. I worry far more about the tarting up and dumbing down of our news media than I do about any ideological infiltration.

Federal employees and military personnel can donate to the Media Research Center through the Combined Federal Campaign or CFC. To donate to the MRC, use CFC #12489. Visit the CFC website for more information about giving opportunities in your workplace.